- The A.A. failure rate ranges from 95% to 100%. Sometimes, the A.A. success rate is actually less than zero, which means that A.A. indoctrination is positively harmful to people, and prevents recovery. Some tests have shown that even receiving no treatment at all for alcoholism is much better than receiving A.A. treatment:
- One of the most enthusiastic boosters of Alcoholics Anonymous, Professor George Vaillant of Harvard University, who is also a member of the Board of Trustees of Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. (AAWS), showed by his own 8 years of testing of A.A. that A.A. was worse than useless — that it didn’t help the alcoholics any more than no treatment at all, and it had the highest death rate of any treatment program tested — a death rate that Professor Vaillant himself described as “appalling”. While trying to prove that A.A. treatment works, Professor Vaillant actually proved that A.A. kills. After 8 years of A.A. treatment, the score with Dr. Vaillant’s first 100 alcoholic patients was: 5 sober, 29 dead, and 66 still drinking.
- The A.A. dropout rate is terrible. Most people who come to A.A. looking for help in quitting drinking are appalled by the narrow-minded atmosphere of fundamentalist religion and faith-healing. The A.A. meeting room has a revolving door. The therapists, judges, and parole officers (many of whom are themselves hidden members of A.A. or N.A.) continually send new people to A.A., but those newcomers vote with their feet once they see what A.A. really is.
Seems to be slow going but here is the first section of the Book of Ruth:
1:2 Iy’lImeleH ghaHpu’ loD pong’e’ ney’omI’ ghaHpu’ be’nalDaj pong’e’ ma’lon Qileon je chaHpu’ puqloDDaj pong’e’ be’leHemjuDe’ erataytngan chaHpu’ mo’ab Hatlh lu’el ‘ej pa’ yIntaH chaH
1:3 Heghpu’ Iy’lImeleH ‘ej chuv ney’omI cha’ puqloDDaj je
1:4 mo’ab be’pu’ Sawpu’ puqloDpu’ ‘orpa pongpu’ wa’ ‘ej rut pongpu’ wa’ wa’maH DISvaD pa’ yIntaH chaH
Woohoo! I was having an annoying day until the mailman came and dropped off the latest Amazon shipment which included Vol 1. of the Chronicles of the Lensmen. The Lensmen series was written by E.E. “Doc” Smith in the 30s and 40s and are considered to be the first sci-fi space opera which heavily influenced George Lucas when he was writing Star Wars (the “lens” which the Lensmen wear gives them powers similar to jedi knights, they use blasters, hyperdrive, etc. One of the planets is named Aldebaran which sounds pretty damn close to Alderaan if you ask me)
Thoughts from anybody who has read the series? In what order should one read them in? (The wikipedia entry suggests reading them in the order they were published which means starting with the third book, Galactic Patrol. )
So for those of you keeping count, starting a war that has killed thousands of people is ok, but killing a few cells for the sake of medial research is bad.
“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others,” Bush said at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who “adopted” frozen embryos not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children.
And Scott Rosenberg from Salon explains why Bush’s position is just plain stupid.
Here is why Bush’s position is a joke: Thousands and thousands of embryos are destroyed every year in fertility clinics. They are created in petri dishes as part of fertility treatments like IVF; then they are discarded.
If Bush and his administration truly believe that destroying an embryo is a kind of murder, they shouldn’t be wasting their time arguing about research funding: They should immediately shut down every fertility clinic in the country, arrest the doctors and staff who operate them, and charge all the wannabe parents who have been wantonly slaughtering legions of the unborn.